THEORETICAL EXPLANATION

THEORETICAL EXPLANATION: PAGE 155

CHAPTER 6CHAPTER 6 THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONTHEORETICAL EXPLANATION


6.1 6.1 INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

Having discussed motivational and contributory factors as well as the proximal

antecedents and situational contexts in which they occur in the previous

chapter, the challenge and focus of the study now shifts towards the

identification and development of a theoretical crime causation model that will

sufficiently explain conservation crime as it relates to the illegal reptile trade

phenomenon.

A perusal of the criminological literature pertaining to crime causation theories

reveals, however, a legion of, often vastly divergent, perspectives and

ideologies, none of which, it is submitted, adequately explain or allow for a full

understanding of any particular crime or crime category entirely unaided. This

fact, therefore, inter-alia, highlighting the complex and multi-dimensional

nature of crime and criminality. An interesting, and at the same time

perplexing observation in this regard, is the fact that, whilst approaches are

often based on competing assumptions, and therefore diametrically opposed,

they can be equally credible and applicable to analogous crime phenomena.

Since conservation crime, although unique in many specific ways, in essence

shares certain qualities with conventional crime, the explanatory model

developed will inevitably gravitate towards a synthesis of plausible

fundamental schools of thought that have historically evolved in the

criminological discourse and necessarily, therefore, be eclectic in nature. A

prerequis ite for the tentative explanation envisaged is, however, that it should,

at least, be pragmatic and enrich the theoretical repertoire - serving as a

means to an end rather than purporting to be an end in itself.

The academic pursuit of criminology and the formulation of criminological

dogma can thus be viewed as integral to the development of the discipline,

and as the basis for all the activities, which are to be personified in criminal

justice.


Bhom (in Brown, Esbensen & Geis 2001:18), states appositely in this regard:

‘Theory is the foundation of criminology and the basis of action. Everything done in

criminal justice is based on theory, although we are often unaware of the theory on

which actions are based. We study theory, then, to know why we are doing what we

do. People who are uninterested in (or abandon) theory are people who choose to

move blindly through life, or, in the case of criminal justice, intervene in people’s lives

with only vague notions about why they are doing what they are doing’ .

In order to address the issue of crime causation modelling in a holistic,

comprehensive and chronological manner, it is, therefore, considered sensible

praxis, to provide a succinct overview of those broad schools of thought, as

well as their developmental sequence, that have historically dominated the

criminological discourse, as a precursor to this chapter.

6.2 6.2 CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORYCLASSIFICATION OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY

Identifying and explaining the processes that cause criminal behaviour are

undoubtedly, as alluded to above, of fundamental importance in examining

and analysing the crime phenomenon. To explain and understand crime,

criminologists have formulated many theories that, at least in their ideal form,

are composed of clearly stated propositions that posit relationships, often of a

causal sort, between events and things under study (Schmalleger 1996:15),

and customarily have their roots in one [or both] of the two major theoretical

approaches discussed below.

Through the years two central ideologies have evolved by means of which

criminologists seek to explain and understand crime and criminality. These

two ideologies or “schools of thought”, namely the classical and positivist

schools are, paradoxically, characterised by antithetical assumptions and

diverse policy implications. Notwithstanding this obvious and inherent mutual

exclusivity, both schools have drawn a wide following and divided support

base that essentially remains to this very day.


It is, moreover, not surprising that these unicausal, all inclusive and dogmatic

shibboleths have often facilitated the fusion of elements from both schools in

order to create theoretical perspectives that more suitably attempt to explain

the complex and multi -dimensional phenomenon that is crime and criminality.

These two schools have, furthermore, inevitably spawned various derivative

explanatory theories/perspectives that are, to a lesser or greater degree,

germane to crime aetiology, but which can invariably be linked to the

particular disposition and orientation of the criminological initiator/scholar.

According to Snyman (1990:18), the history of the development of criminology

is assimilated into the changing language of current criminology. Snyman op.

cit. asserts that there is no “new” criminology, as each line of thought is a

continuation of previous ideas developed through the centuries. The

approach to criminology is, therefore, anything but static, develops with the

changing times, and can be said to be as much influenced by history as by

current events.

The doctrine that characterises each of these schools, their

evolutionary/developmental adjuncts as well as certain other more prominent

theoretical perspectives will be systematically articulated below, serving as a

template for the development of a herpetological crime explanatory model.

6.2.1 6.2.1 THE CLASSICAL SCHOOLTHE CLASSICAL SCHOOL

The classical school of criminology was established in 1755, and is so called

because it was the first (italics mine) attempt to reflect logically and formally

on criminology (Snyman 1990:6). The school was founded by Cesare

Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham and was developed in response to the

primitive and cruel European justice system that existed prior to the French

Revolution of 1798 (Glick 1995:710; White & Haines 2001:28); effectively

usurping earlier views that crime is a supernatural phenomenon (Brown, et al.

2001:227).


Strangely, and of course most appropriately in the context of this thesis it was,

according to South (1998:211), Beccaria himself who once remarked:

‘Do not commit any crime and be just with all the things that surround you. Remember

that even the smallest creatures, crushed by arrogant and cruel men, are endowed with a

little ray of life’.

• Definition

McLaughlin and Muncie (2001, s.v. ‘Classicism’) define this school, which

they term classicism, as follows:

‘An approach to the study of crime and criminality which is underpinned by the notion

of rational action and free will’. It was developed in the late eighteenth and early

nineteenth centuries by reformers who aimed to create a clear and legitimate criminal

justice system based upon equality. At its core is the idea that punishment should be

proportionate to the criminal act and should be viewed as a deterrent. Further

assumptions include the notion of individual choice within a consensual society based

on upon a social contract and the common interest’.

• General premise

Ultimately the classical school views human behaviour as essentially

rational in nature and suggests that people have the ability to choose right

from wrong – in actual fact, it proposes that the major element governing a

person’s choice of action is the basic human desire to obtain gratification

and avoid pain (Bartol 1995:12; Glick 1995:71; White & Haines 2001:29).

Maguire and Radosh (1999:23) summarise the core presumptions of this

ideology as follows:

q All individuals seek to maximise what is in their own interests

(hedonism).

q Rational calculation is used to achieve aims.

q Behaviour is freely chosen.

q The tendency to seek pleasure often results in crime.


This theory, therefore, presupposes that the criminal offender is a

conscious agent, not someone who is so besieged by internal or external

forces so as to lose his/her personal sense of reason. Hence, the

emphasis within this school falls on crime per se, and not necessarily the

criminal. Punishment is seen as a major mechanism by which to promote

compliance with the law [crime prevention/deterrence], and the notion of

equitable chastisement is, therefore, unconditionally endorsed (White &

Haines 2001:29; Williams & McShane 1999:23). For Beccaria (in White &

Haines 2001:28) the objective of punishment was fundamentally to

prevent the criminal from doing further injury to society, and to prevent

others from committing similar offences by inflicting punishment in such a

mode that it would make the strongest and most lasting impression on the

minds of others, with the least affliction to the body of the criminal.

According to Mc Reynolds (in Bartol 1995:12), Bentham, somewhat

incongruously, apparently believed that all individuals are inherently

motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain, without exception, in all

situations and it would, therefore, appear that even Bentham’s notion of

free will included a good measure of biological determinism, a

fundamental tenet of positivist ideology. Despite such paradoxes, the

classical school of thought remains popular in the criminological

academia, and according to Williams and McShane (1999:24), it may be

safe to say that some two-hundred-year-old ideas are among our latest

policy and theoretical notions.

6.2.2 6.2.2 THE POSITIVIST SCHOOLTHE POSITIVIST SCHOOL

Although the classical perspective dominated the thinking and understanding

of crime, law and justice for almost a century, many of the proposals made by

the classical theorists had little effect on the crime problem (Glick 1995:77).

More emphasis was subsequently placed on the existence of certain patterns

in the manifestation of crime, drawing attention away from notions of

rationalism and punishment, moving towards a scientific investigation of the


causes of crime and stressing in particular the influence of hereditary,

psychological and social factors (ibid. 1995:76-7). White and Haines

(2001:36) stress that the development of positivistic perspectives constituted a

major break with the classical tradition that saw crime as primarily a matter of

individual choice, due to positivists explaining crime by reference to forces

and factors outside the decision making ability of the individual.

• Definition

McLaughlin and Muncie (2001, s.v. ‘Positivism’) define this school as

follows:

‘A theoretical approach that emerged in the early nineteenth century which argues

that social relations and events (including crime) can be studied scientifically using

methods derived from the natural sciences. Its aim is to search for, explain and

predict future patterns of social behaviour. In criminology it straddles biological,

psychological and sociological disciplines in an attempt to identify key causes of

crime – whether genetic, psychological, social or economic – which are thought to lie

largely out of each individual’s control’.

• General premise

Positivism, according to White and Haines (2001:38), was in fact founded

upon the belief that society (civilisation) is progressing ever forward, and

that the social scientist can study society, provide a more accurate

understanding of how society works, and ultimately provide a rational

means of overcoming existing social problems and ills by using scientific

methods. Williams and McShane (1999:32) stress further in this regard

that the primary characteristics of positivist criminological thought

[essentially empiricism] are a deterministic view of the world, a focus on

criminal behaviour instead of on legal issues such as rights, and the

prevention of crime through the [individualised] treatment and

rehabilitation of offenders.


Positivism essentially stressed the idea that much human behaviour is a

function of external social forces beyond individual control, and internal

forces such as mental capabilities (psychological determinism) and

biological makeup (biological determinism) – people were beginning to be

viewed and understood as beings that are part of the animal kingdom,

whose behaviour was very much influenced (if not determined) by social,

cultural and biological antecedents, rather than as self -determined beings

who were free to do what they wanted (Glick 1995:77-8; White & Haines

2001:43-46).

White and Haines (2001:40) stress that three presuppositions in particular

underpin the scientific approach as conceived by the positivists:

q Social scientists are seen to be neutral observers of the world, and

their work is ‘value free’. This is because the world was seen to be

‘out there’, as an external reality, and the role of the scientist is merely

to record the ‘facts’.

q The key method of the positivist is to classify and quantify human

experience and behaviours through a range of objective tests. This

means developing various ways to measure human activity.

q As with the natural world, the social world is seen to obey general laws

of operation. The task of the positivist is to uncover the causal

determinants of human behaviour (i.e., to identify ‘cause’ and ‘effect’

relationships), and thus both to predict and to modify future behaviour

outcomes.

Positivism is, therefore, related to efforts to adopt natural science methods

and concepts in the study of society, basically entailing the acceptance of

certain ideas about human experience, and attempting to enumerate and

systematise this experience in the anticipation that expert intercession

could obviate or remedy/mitigate specific kinds of social problems. To all

intents and purposes the positivist school (also known as the Italian

school), with its emphasis on hard biological determinism and reliance on

the use of the senses to gather observable facts and measurements,


heralded the beginning of modern scientific criminology (Bartol 1995:13).

The premise of this school, founded by Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) is,

therefore, deterministic and focuses on the offender whilst seeking to

explain criminal behaviour in terms of biological attributes. The positivist

orientation, with its exclusive or near exclusive reliance on observable

facts, continues to be significant in the study of crime today (Bartol

1995:13; Snyman 1990:11).

Modern-day positivists, however, define and identify criminality in a

manner geared to establishing those people who are ‘at risk’ of certain

behaviour, and there is no longer a one-to-one link between crime and

behaviour; rather, certain groups are seen to be more predisposed to

crime than others because of biological and social environmental factors –

individuals are not born criminal, they are exposed to baseline biological

and psychological processes that mould their persona in childhood (White

& Haines 2001:48).

6.2.3 6.2.3 THE NEOCLASSICAL SCHOOLTHE NEOCLASSICAL SCHOOL

Largely due to its extreme and inflexible nature, classicism proved to be

unrealistic in its assumption of the complete rationality of offenders as well as

its unequivocal opposition to judicial discretion, and was, therefore, gradually

bespoke by neoclassical thought (Brown, Esbensen & Geis 1991:242).

• Definition

Winfree and Abadinski (2003:23) define neoclassicism as an approach

effectively maintaining the basic belief in free will while paving the way for

the entry of mitigation (and subsequently aggravation) into criminal justice

based on past criminal record, insanity, retardation, and age –

punishment only being justified if the crime is the result of reas oned

behaviour.


• General premise

This school does not, however, represent any schism with the classical

view of human nature, but merely challenges the classical position of

absolute free will (Bartol 1995:12), subsequently developing rules to cope

with extenuating circumstances where individuals could be deemed not to

be totally responsible for their actions (White & Haines 2001:30). Bartol

op. cit. maintains, furthermore, that neo-classicists specifically argue that

free will can be inhibited by pathology, incompetence, mental disorder, or

other conditions that may mitigate personal responsibility. Whereas

“pure” classicists had maintained that humans are totally accountable for

their actions, neo-classicists claim that this is not always the case.

Neoclassical thought, according to Brown et al. (1991:229), introduced

the following shifts in criminal policy, namely:

q There was an identification of degrees in criminal responsibility.

Juveniles and the mentally ill, for instance, were deemed incapable of

forming intent to commit crime and were consequently absolved from

responsibility. This shift from a focus on the harm inflicted to the intent

of the offender represents the most important distinction between

classical and neoclassical thought – a focus that has survived as a

governing principle of western jurisprudence.

q Neoclassicism excepts certain categories of persons from the

assumption of free will, otherwise presumed in classical thought to

dominate all human behaviour. It logically follows that if an individual

does not exercise free will, punishment will be of no deterrent value.

Neoclassical revisionism strengthened the premises of classicism with

its pragmatic philosophy for administration of justice.

q Closely related to the introduction of the idea of criminal intent, was a

return of a limited degree of discretion to judges. If free will is not

absolute, then providing for extenuating circumstances is

understandable. Following this line of reasoning, criminal codes began

to specify ranges of punishments.


Neoclassical philosophy can according to Empey, Stafford and Hay

(1999:234), be divided into three branches or groups, namely:

q Utilitarian philosophers who believe that legal punishments serve two

vital functions: (1) deterring persons from committing crimes and (2)

protecting society from those whose acts threaten the social order.

The proponents of this philosophy, which is basically deterrence theory,

agree with positivists that people are not entirely rational, but hasten to

add that this does not imply that they are undeterrable. They are of the

opinion that deterrence depends on the likelihood and on the regularity

of human responses to danger, and not on rationality.

q Just deserts philosophers who, in contrast to utilitarians, question the

utility of legal punishment as a means of deterring crime and advocate

its use only because those who commit crimes deserve to be punished.

They claim that the rehabilitative ideal is a vehicle for abuse and that

the only alternative is to restrict its power and replace it with a system

based on classical principles. In short, the just deserts model holds

that criminal offenders deserve the punishment they receive at the

hands of the law because they allowed themselves to be attracted to

crime and chose to violate the law. Siegel (2001:140-141) and White

and Haines (2001:31) in harmonising and supplementing the above

sentiments, propose four basic principles, which essentially

encapsulate notions of free will and rationality, as well as

proportionality and equality, with regard to the just deserts approach,

namely:

§ No one other than a person found to be guilty of a crime

must be punished for it.

§ Anyone found to be guilty of a crime must be punished

for that crime.

§ Punishment must not be more than of a degree

commensurate to or proportional to the nature or gravity

of the offence and culpability of the criminal.


§ Punishment must not be less than of a degree

commensurate to or proportional to the nature or gravity

of the offence and culpability of the criminal.

Just deserts philosophy, therefore, eschews individual discretion and

rehabilitation as aims of the criminal justice system.

q Rational choice philosophers argue that the principles of classical

criminology can do more than merely shed light on the appropriate

legal reactions to crime. They can be used to construct scientific

theories that explain such behaviour.

As is abundantly clear from the above exposition, the distinction between

the classical and neoclassical schools is at best obscure, and they, in

essence, represent a continuum of free will based deterrence doctrine. As

Einstadter and Henry (1995:43) aptly put it ‘[c]lassicism and neoclassical

developments are based on a very different set of assumptions and offer a

fundamentally more measured analysis of crime and justice, relying, as

they do, on humans’ capacity for rational thought, rather than assuming an

animal instinct of fear’.

The contrast between these highly similar schools and positivistic

criminology, however, rem ains very sharp.

6.2.4 6.2.4 CONFLICT CRIMINOLOGYCONFLICT CRIMINOLOGY

One of the more prominent doctrines to be developed in the late fifties and

early sixties in reaction to the afore-mentioned ideologies, and one which itself

has spawned various derivatives such as left realism and anarchism (Williams

& McShane 1999:171-2), is the conflict theory. This ideology, with its

emphasis on economic, social and/or political conflict as the major causes of

crime in society strove to replace existing theories, methods and applications

with new ones possessing strong political undercurrents (Snyman 1990:14).


Modern conflict theories, also known as radical, critical, new, materialist,

Marxist and/or socialist criminology represent a strategic break from the

idealist, somewhat stereotyped and linear thinking applied by specifically

positivist scholars, and questions the fundamental orientation of conventional

criminology, which focuses primarily on the criminal as the main subject of

research.

• Definition

McLaughlin and Muncie (2001, s.v. ‘Conflict Theory’) define this theory as

follows:

‘Conflict theory is usually contrasted with positivism or those theories that assume

that a basic consensus exists in society. It has taken three major forms. Culture

conflict theory focuses on clashes between conduct norms. Group conflict theory

relates such clashes directly to the position of elites and the wielding of political

power. Class conflict theory views power differentials in the context of the systematic

generation of structured inequalities in capitalist societies. All stress that to

understand crime we must also understand the interests served by criminal law and

the way in which those in authority use their power’.

• General premise

According to Platt (in Barlow 1996:431) , radical criminologists reject

those liberal doctrines, which they believe have served to strengthen the

power of the State over poor, Third World communities and the youth. To

radicals, crime and criminality are manifestations of the exploitative

character of monopoly capitalism, and current efforts to control crime are

poorly disguised attempts to reduce freedoms and to divert attention from

the real culprits – those who control capital (Barlow 1996:432). Put

another way, criminals are the manifestations of the failure of society to

meet individual’s needs and the sources of crime are to be found in the

laws, customs and distribution of power and wealth (Glick 1995:175).


Tierney (1996:281) identifies the main features of radical criminology as

follows:

q The nature and extent of crime are analysed within the context of a

specifically capitalist society.

q Such a society is seen as characterised by inherent class conflict,

and other conflictual divisions based upon, notably, patriarchy and

racism.

q Crime, law and social control are to be understood by locating them

within material and ideological contexts.

q The ultimate goal is the transformation of society along ‘socialist’

lines.

q Individualised, positivist explanations of criminality are rejected.

In summary, therefore, the conflict perspective posits that crime is a

result of the competition within the capitalist dispensation that persuades

individuals that each one is responsible for his/her own well being, and

that it is hence economically justifiable to compete with others for wealth

and status. Crime through the conflict perspective, it is submitted, is

essentially seen as a product of a criminogenic society in which

justifications for criminal activities are [seemingly] sought, rather than a

realistic cause/explanation for criminal behaviour.

6.3 6.3 THEORETICAL EXPLANATION OF HERPETOLOGICAL THEORETICAL EXPLANATION OF HERPETOLOGICAL

CRIMECRIME

Based on the salient features of herpetological crime identified in the

preliminary chapters of this thesis, as well as a perusal of the criminological

philosophy and theoretical subsidiaries that have traditionally dominated this

discipline, it now becomes possible to identify appropriate theoretical

constituents and develop a causational model/perspective that will adequately

explicate the illegal reptile trade phenomenon.


When taking into account the characteristics, features, activities and typical

nature of conservation crime directed at herpetological resources, the

premeditated, lucid, but also underlying positivist nuances and attributes of

this crime category become evident. An appropriate explanation for

herpetological, and indeed much other conservation crime, it is submitted, can

thus be sought within the existing framework of both the classical/neoclassical

and positivist ideologies.

This model -designate draws on the limited theory and research in the field of

herpetological/conservation crime and on leading crime explanatory theories

in order to develop a comprehensive model/perspective concerning the

aetiology of the illegal reptile trade: a model designed to integrate previous

particular this theoretical model/perspective draws on and merges, to a

greater or lesser extent, elements from Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General

Theory of Crime (Classical/Neoclassical), Bandura’s Social

Learning/Socialisation Theory (Positivist), Sykes and Matza’s Neutralization

Theory (Positivist) and Cornish and Clarke’s Rational Choice Perspective

(Classical/Neoclassical), in order to proffer an explanation as to why

herpetological crime occurs. These theories have been selected, as they

appear to provide a satisfactory foundation on which to construct an

integrated model/perspective of herpetological crime, given their focus on the

factors, which, in the opinion of the researcher, lead individuals to illegally

exploit and manipulate natural resources.

6.3.1 6.3.1 GOTTFREDSON AND HIRSCHI’S GENERAL THEORY OF GOTTFREDSON AND HIRSCHI’S GENERAL THEORY OF

CRIME (GTCCRIME (GTC))

• Definition

According to Winfree and Abadinski (2003:212) this theory, also called

self-control theory and event-propensity theory can be defined as a theory

in which the key causal elements are poor parental management and

inadequate child rearing practices resulting in low self-control which


influences an individual’s choices when faced with an opportunity for

immediate gain through little investment.

• General premise

Gottfredson and Hirschi proposed their General Theory of Crime as an all-

encompassing theory to explain not only all types of crimes, but also many

other deviant actions (Moyer 2001:151). Consistent with Brown et al.

(2001:354-5), crime, in terms of GTC, is the result of individuals with low

self-control encountering situations or opportunities in which crime will

produce immediate gratification with relatively low levels of risk. According

to Brown et al. (2001:355); Moyer (2001:153); Siegel and Senna

(2000:182); and Williams and Mc Shane (1999:197), Gottfredson and

Hirschi maintain that self-control is taught in early childhood, implying that

parental discipline and management (child rearing practices) are key

factors in explaining delinquent and adult criminal offending.

These authors contend further that, according to Gottfredson & Hirschi, not

all individuals with low self-control will engage in criminal behaviour

because, although the tendency will be for such individuals to pursue

immediate gratification, only when opportunities allowing for use of self-

gratifying force arise, will these individuals resort to crime. Moyer

(2001:153) stresses in this regard that there must be money or goods that

are attractive to the offender, available to the offender, not rightfully the

property of the offender and that the offender must be insufficiently

restrained for crime to transpire.

Moyer supra, furthermore, importantly mentions that low self-control

implies that people differ in the extent to which they are restrained from

criminal acts, with individuals possessing less self-control more prone to

committing crimes, but as Gottfredson and Hirschi (1996:41) argue, crime

not being an automatic or necessary (italics mine) consequence of low

self-control.


Figure 6.1: Schematic representation of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Self-

Control Theory (Winfree & Abadinski (2003:214).

• Elements of self-control

Gott fredson and Hirschi (1996:40-41) and Winfree and Abadinski

(2003:213) distinguish between the following fundamentals of self-control:

q Criminal acts provide immediate gratification of desires. A major

characteristic of people with low self-control is, therefore, a tendency to

respond to tangible stimuli in the immediate environment. People with

high self-control tend to defer gratification. The researcher infers from

this sentiment that even when criminal acts do not immediately realise,

lets say fiscal benefits, the promise thereof sufficiently qualifies as

immediate gratification.

q Criminal acts provide easy or simple gratification of desires. They

provide money without work, sex without courtship, revenge without

court delays, and so forth. People lacking self-control also tend to lack

diligence, tenacity, or persistence in a course of action.

q Criminal acts are exciting, risky or thrilling. They involve stealth,

danger, speed, deception, and/or power. People lacking self-control,

therefore, tend to be adventuresome, active and physical.

q Crimes provide few or meagre long-term benefits. They are not

equivalent to a job or a career. People with low self-control thus tend to

have unstable marriages, friendships and job profiles. They lack long-

term commitment, so to speak.

q Crimes require little skill or planning. The cognitive requirement for

most crimes is minimal. People lacking self-control need not possess

PARENTAL MANAGEMENT

INEFFECTIVE PARENTING

EFFECTIVE PARENTING

LOW SELF-CONTROL

OTHER LEVELS OF SELF-CNTRL.

DELINQUENCY PRONENESS

CONFORMITY PRONENESS


or value cognitive or academic skills. The manual skills required for

most crimes are minimal.

q Crimes often result in pain or discomfort for the victim. People with low

self-control tend to be egotistical, indifferent, or insensitive to the

suffering and needs of others. They need not, however, be routinely

unkind or antisocial.

q Crimes require the interaction of an offender with people or their

property. All things being equal, gregarious or social people are more

likely to be involved in criminal acts.

q The risk of criminal penalty for any given criminal act is small, but this

depends in part on the circumstances of the offence.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1996:41) reason that individuals who possess low

self-control exhibit to a large extent the traits listed above, subsequently

rendering same a stable construct useful in the explanation of crime.

• Child rearing and self-control: The family

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1996:44-49) are, in addition to the

aforementioned indicators of poor self -control, of the opinion that the

following child rearing deficiencies play a crucial role in the inculcation of

poor self-control in a child:

q Degree of attachment of the parent to the child - lack of concern for the

welfare of the child is a necessary condition for successful child

rearing.

q Parental supervision – the correlation between social control and self-

control could not be more direct than in the case of parental

supervision of the child. Such supervision presumably prevents

criminal or analogous acts and at the same time trains the child to

avoid them on his own.

q Recognition of deviant behaviour – in order for supervision to have an

impact on self-control, the supervisor must recognise deviant behaviour


when it occurs. Evidence of poor conduct standards in homes of

delinquents is common.

q Punishment of deviant acts – not all caretakers punish effectively.

Disapproval by one people one cares about is one of the most powerful

sanctions.

q Parental criminality – people lacking self-control do not socialise their

children well, allowing the prediction that some people are more likely

than others to fail to socialise their children and that this will be a

consequence of their own inadequate socialisation.

q Family size – a consistent finding of delinquency research is that the

larger the number of children in the family, the greater the probability of

criminal behaviour occurring. Affection for the individual child may be

unaffected by numbers, and parents with large families may be as able

to recognise deviant behaviour, but monitoring and punishment will

probably be more difficult the greater the number of children in the

family.

q The single parent family – studies directly comparing children living

with both biological parents with children living in ”broken’ or

reconstituted homes consistently show that the children from intact

homes have lower rates of crime.

q The mother who works outside the home – the effect of this

phenomenon on delinquency is completely accounted for by the quality

of supervision provided by the mother. The children of employed

women are thus more likely to be delinquent.

• General theory of crime – classical or positivist?

Although this theory, due to its close correlation with socialisation aspects,

such as, child rearing practices (parenting) seems to genuinely suggest a

positivist orientation (White & Haines 2001:49 -50), Gottfredson and

Hirschi, however, rule out positivistic sources of self-control such as

learning or cultural transmission, arguing that no one will intentionally pass

on to their offspring the trait of low self-control, given that it is a

dysfunctional trait (Brown et al. 2001:355).


According to these authors, Gottfredson and Hirschi further aver that in the

absence of effective child rearing, low self-control will persist and if

children’s behaviour is not monitored and deviance sanctioned over the

first eight years of life, self-control will be set or remain at a low level.

Maguire and Radosh (1999:199) endorse this sentiment by stating that the

inability to control oneself successfully is linked to childhood experiences

that portend of lifelong propensity for committing illegal acts.

Williams and McShane (1999:198) appositely sum up the gist of what has

been said above by stating that criminality traits are naturally present and

that in the absence of “socialisation” an individual’s ability to accurately

calculate the consequences of an action are affected, causing the

individual to be high on crime potential and predisposed towards diverse

undesirable social behaviours such as truancy, alcohol abuse, smoking,

and so forth.

• Application in herpetological context

Although this theory is often presented as a complete explanation for crime

causation, it is felt that such an application would essentially serve to

trivialise/oversimplify the complex process of crime causation, and GTC, in

as much as it stresses deficient self-control and crime opportunities, is,

subsequently, in the context of an explanation of herpetological crime only

viewed as one, albeit integral, aspect of the total criminal

process/performance. GTC as an explanatory theory tends to combine

various circumstantial elements, such as rational choice (exercise of free

will), hedonism (seeking pleasure) and opportunity (lifestyle issues), whilst

placing a strong emphasis on the inculcation of poor self-control -

unmistakably the central thrust of the theory. It is this element of GTC

(together with crime opportunities) that is then selected as a vital

constituent of the herpetological crime explanation model.


6.3.2 6.3.2 BANDURA’S SOCIAL LEARNING THEORYBANDURA’S SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

Although GTC accurately, it is submitted, identifies the human trait of greed

(self -interest) as being intrinsically present in all human beings, and the

establishment of low self-control (in concert with opportunity, hedonism and

rational choice) as being a central premise enticing/sensitising/predisposing

individuals towards [conventional] crime, it is felt that there is a further

underlying factor that stimulates individuals to partake in herpetological crime

- essentially non-conventional crime. GTC can indeed be applied as an

explanatory theory for many, if not most, forms of conventional crime, but

would seem to founder somewhat in explaining why someone would

specifically participate in something so unique as herpetological crime.

Self-control deficiencies and opportunities for crime, as discussed above,

cannot alone, it is submitted, sufficiently explain the incidence of the illegal

trade in reptiles, and begs for a further, less arbitrary, mechanism that

purports to orientate, sensitise and/or activate those with a propensity towards

crime to become involved in herpetological deviance. In this regard the

researcher would like to propose that Bandura’s Social Learning Theory,

although specifically developed to explain aggressive behaviour (Bartol

1995:181), could provide a satisfactory solution to the issue and serve as a

major approach for integrating the other components of this explanatory

perspective.

• Definition

According to Siegel and Senna (2000:165), socialisation can be defined as

the process of guiding people into socially acceptable behaviour patterns

through the distribution of information, approval, rewards, and

punishments via interaction with significant individuals and institutions –

essentially a process of human development and enculturation that is

influenced by key social processes and enterprises.


• General premise

In terms of the afore-mentioned theory, all human behaviour is learned in

early childhood, by observing (modelling), imitating and/or interacting with

role models, in particular parents and family members, and can be

strengthened by reinforcement or weakened by punishment (Bartol

1995:183; Glick 1995:108; Williams & McShane 1999:198). According to

Yablonsky (1990:135-136), the community in which the offender grows up

is apt to significantly affect his/her values, ethics and choices in life –

essentially promoting criminal tendencies as a result of the social context

within which aberrant behaviour is learnt. In a nutshell, therefore, criminal

behaviour is viewed as a learnt response to social conditions and life

situations, and subsequently qualifies as positivistic theory.

The researcher is not, however, proposing that the criminal tendency to

partake in herpetological crime is, in accordance with this theory, learnt per

se, but rather that individuals, through the socialisation process, acquire

and assimilate the general [negative], unbalanced civic stereotype

regarding reptiles, evident in society to this very day. Drawing on

Bandura’s theory, the crucial features of the socialisation process are the

models people are exposed to, the reinforcements and punishments

exposed to, the reinforcements and punishments received, and the beliefs

they are taught. People learn, albeit incorrectly, in their particular

communities/neighbourhoods, that reptiles are cold, heartless, invidious

and execrable organisms, which are less significant in nature and, in the

main, a threat to human well being - objects that should be despised,

killed, maimed or otherwise disliked.

Such sentiments are, furthermore, reinforced by, amongst others,

schoolmates and peers as similar socialisation processes transpire within

their family environments. Agnew (1998:196) is, furthermore, of the

opinion that the media also contributes to this process through their

anthropomorphic portrayal of certain animals, like deer and lions.

According to this author, such depiction leads people to grant greater


moral consideration to particular types of animals, and by implication,

therefore, less to certain others, such as reptiles. Since little or no

perceivable punishment/chastisement accompanies these negative

sentiments, and conformity with these views realise rewards, in the sense

of societal acceptance, this contaminated emotion/response towards

reptiles becomes entrenched within the individual’s frame of reference and

psyche. Should such an individual also, however, have the misfortune of

possessing low self-control, as discussed earlier with regard to GTC, the

probability of him/her becoming involved in herpetological crime, will, it is

submitted, increase exponentially, should suitable opportunities present

themselves.

It should be made clear at this point that the socialisation towards reptiles

described above by no means implies that individuals will be compelled to

attempt herpetological crime, but rather that the entrenched negative

stereotype/perception of reptiles will influence and shape the decision to

partake in such activities, should the individual have an elevated crime

propensity due to low/deficient self-control mechanisms. It should,

furthermore, be emphasised, that such socialised individuals do not

generally display any identifiable personality defects, and are no more

emotionally disturbed than the average person – they only become more

prone to involvement in herpetological crime as a result of the social

context in which they learn distorted, prejudiced, and indeed, deviant

values regarding reptiles. In relation to the afore-going it is interesting to

note that the Senegalese conservationist Baba Dioum once observed the

following (Damm 2003:151):

‘[I]n the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we

understand, we will understand only what we are taught!’


Low self-control, opportunities and inadequate/deficient/prejudiced

socialisation regarding reptiles are considered as particularly relevant


elements for providing a theoretical foundation, and explaining the genesis

of herpetological crime for, amongst others, the following reasons:

q Ineffective child-rearing practices that lead to low self-control can be

anticipated throughout society, from rich to poor communities, as well

as in all population groups. Although the nature, frequency and

intensity of these deficiencies will, in all likelihood, not be uniform in

character, and vary depending on one’s position on the affluence

continuum, the ensuing low self-control that manifests itself can be

regarded as ubiquitous in society. It is, however, anticipated that a

higher incidence of low self-control will be evidenced in poverty

stricken and deprived communities, due to the presence of a larger

number of such communities and the differing hardships, values,

standards and norms applicable within such impecunious units.

Yablonsky (1990:137) reasons in this regard that in poverty areas,

the values, social pressures, and norms favourable to crime can be

considered strong and constant. The unconditional eagerness to

illegally exploit natural reptile resources for [minimal] monetary gain

displayed by rural farm workers in the random and spatially remote

trials recently conducted by a conservation capacitated local authority

on the West Coast (see chapter 4) serves as testament to this fact.

q Deficient, distorted and notably biased stereotypes, regarding

especially reptiles such as snakes and lizards, is a phenomenon that

is, similarly, ubiquitous throughout society, and something that is not

restricted significantly by status and/or demographic precincts. Just

as poverty stricken individuals, as representatives of one extreme of

the continuum, indiscriminately utilise natural reptile resources for

victuals, subsistence and/or medicinal/traditional purposes, so

CDT&C’s, as representatives of the other extreme of the continuum,

exploit these selfsame resources for greed (financial gain) and/or

status reasons. Agnew (1998:201), however, feels that the more

affluent members of society can be expected, on the whole, to be

better educated than their lesser well-off counterparts and

subsequently more likely to learn about the importance of


treating/viewing all animals as beneficial, and/or be exposed to

beliefs that discourage intolerance and discrimination. Even though

reptile resources are illegally exploited/manipulated in distinct ways

by the different factions, the underlying stimulus, it is submitted, is

similar, namely the deficient socialisation vis-à-vis reptiles, and the

concomitant propensity to commit crime due to low self-control

mechanisms.

q The rationalisations provided above, furthermore, to a large extent,

explain variations in crime - why certain individuals are inclined to

partake in [herpetological] crime and others not. Not all individuals in

a community are infused with low self-control, nor are all individuals

exposed to the same degree of socialisation regarding reptiles. Not

all individuals that have low self -control are necessarily prejudiced

towards and/or have a deficient socialisation regarding reptiles and

opportunities are, furthermore, not always present. It is only when

there is a confluence of these essential ingredients that

[herpetological] crime will quite conceivably result.

Having argued these points, it should, however, also be noted that not all

illegal reptile exploitation/manipulation can be ascribed to a confluence

of the above-mentioned factors, as exceptions are bound to occur.

Opportunistic/accidental crime involving reptiles can easily arise, or

individuals involved in conventional crime could diversify or be exposed

to such crime, inadvertently causing such them to pursue the abundant

opportunities presented.

6.3.3 6.3.3 SYKES AND MATZA’S NEUTRALISATION THEORYSYKES AND MATZA’S NEUTRALISATION THEORY

• Definition

McLaughlin and Muncie (2001, s.v. ‘Neutralization, Techniques of’) define

neutralisation as follows:


‘A distinctive set of justifications that enables individuals temporarily to drift away from

the normative rules and values of society and engage in delinquent behaviour. This

social psychological “social control” perspective was developed by Gresham Sykes

and David Matza to challenge overly deterministic, positivistic subcultural theories of

crime which denied agency and rationality’.

• General premise

According to Siegel and Senna (2000:175), neutralisation theory [in the

positivist tradition] contends that damage caused by criminal actions is

neutralised in the mind of an offender before a crime is committed allowing

guilt feelings to be eliminated, temporarily freeing a potential offender from

the moral constraints imposed by society’s rules and laws. Fattah

(1993:243), in corroborating this sentiment, suggests that neutralisation

has the victimiser (criminal) as its focus, and that its main purpose is to

enable the victimiser to overcome the moral and cultural barriers that stand

in the way of the victimisation (criminal) act. Fattah supra consolidates by

stating that the neutralisation process operates to strip the criminal act of

its delinquent, illegal or immoral character making it possible to hurt, injure

or harm the victim without feeling bad or guilty about it and without

suffering post victimisation cognitive dissonance (disharmony).

Sykes and Matza (1996:209) importantly point out that although

neutralisation techniques or justifications/rationalisations are commonly

viewed as following deviant behaviour and as protecting the individual from

self-blame and the blame of others after the act, there is also reason to

believe that they precede deviant behaviour and make deviant behaviour

possible. Conklin (2001:217) appositely harmonizes the above sentiments

by stating that individuals can avoid moral blame and maintain self-esteem

while violating the law if they tell themselves and others that they had no

criminal intent or that their behaviour was justified.


• Techniques of neutralisation

According to Conklin (2001:217-222); Sykes and Matza (in Blac kburn

1993:201); Sykes and Matza (1996:209-212); and Siegel & Senna

2000:175), five techniques of neutralisation can be distinguished, namely:

q Denial of responsibility – Offenders may declare that a

criminal/delinquent act was an accident or assert that it was caused

by factors/circumstances beyond their control, such as poverty,

broken home, negligent parents or wayward friends. Sykes and

Matza (1996:209), furthermore, aver that the delinquent essentially

approaches a ‘billiard ball’ conception of himself in which he sees

himself as helplessly propelled into new situations. The criminal,

therefore, by learning to see himself as more acted upon than acting,

prepares the way for digression from the prevailing normative system

without the necessity of a anterior assault on the medians themselves.

People participating in herpetological crime that employ this technique

might well argue that the state is failing in its duty to protect the

province’s/country’s natural resource assets and they are, therefore,

fair game – the “if I don’t do it somebody else will syndrome”, or they

might reason that the organisms are already so despised by society

that their removal is beneficial rather than detrimental. They might

even justify their behaviour by reconciling themselves with the fact

that crime pertaining to reptiles is not a major crime and that

participation in it is commonplace.

q Denial of injury – Criminal behaviour is rationalised. Offenders may

claim that little or no harm will ensue as a result of their crime, even if

they technically violate the law. Those that violate the law may be

less sensitive to the effect their behaviour has on victims or may

regard their victims as objects or means to their own ends rather than

as individuals [entities] that suffer when victimised. People using this

technique in relation to herpetological deviance might well argue that

the reptile resource is so vast and infinite that it can’t possibly be

depleted by their illegal exploitation efforts, despite such activities


running counter to the law. Removal of reptiles from their natural

environment could be regarded as “borrowing” from the environment

to ensure the safety of the organism, and/or by breeding with

poached/rustled [“borrowed”] organisms they can be redistributed, in

this manner supposedly promoting the conservation of the resource.

Due to society’s general aversion and indifference towards reptiles it

could well transpire that the herpetological delinquent’s actions may

be tolerated or absolved by the populace, reaffirming, so to speak, the

notion that the delinquent’s neutralisation of social controls by means

of meeting the criteria of the norms is an augmentation of customary

practice rather than a signal of complete resistance.

q Denial of the victim – Offenders might argue that a crime is justified

as rightful retaliation against the victim, i.e. the victim deserves it.

Offenders see the victim as a wrongdoer, rather than seeing

themselves as wrongdoers, and use that attitude towards the victim to

justify the offence. Sykes and Matza (1996:210) argue further in this

regard that even if delinquents accept responsibility for their deviant

actions and are willing to admit that their actions involve an injury or

harm, the moral indignation of self and others may be neutralised by

an insistence that the injury is not wrong in the light of the

circumstances. Given the negative stereotype and reputation that

reptiles enjoy in society, herpetological offenders might well deem it

acceptable behaviour to criminally manipulate herpetological

resources. They might further, because of the careless/negligent

attitude displayed towards reptile conservation by the authorities feel

that they [the authorities] deserve to lose some of the biodiversity that

they have been charged with preserving, or even that they are doing

society a favour by removing harmful and despised organisms.

Having been apprehended/prosecuted for reptile related deviance

could also leave the perpetrator feeling victimised and abused as a

soft target. Crime directed at reptile resources could subsequently be

seen as a form of retaliation/rebellion - justice for the “wrong” inflicted

on him/her, whilst not experiencing any substantial awareness of a

particular victim during the score settling exercise.


q Condemnation of the condemners – The assertion regarding this

neutralisation technique is that it is the motives and behaviour of the

people who are condemning the offender, rather than the motives and

behaviour of the offender, that should be denounced. The blame for

the crime is essentially shifted onto others and any feelings of guilt

suppressed. Many kinds of offenders justify their actions in terms of

this technique. Murderers and bank robbers compare for example the

harsh punishments they receive with the lack of punishment for

politicians who send young men to their deaths in senseless wars.

Sykes and Matza (1996:211) aver further in this regard that

delinquents may claim that the condemners are in fact hypocrites and

deviants in disguise or even individuals impelled by personal spite. In

a herpetological crime context, offenders might argue that those

condemning and prosecuting them for herpetological crime are not

themselves doing much to conserve the resource, and therefore have

no place to speak. They might argue further that disparate legislation

lack of coordination and inefficient sanctions, as well as indifference

towards grassroots reptile conservation/policing are to blame for

herpetological deviance and, furthermore, that law enforcers

[guardians] are themselves commonly involved in illegal exploitation

endeavours, seldom paying little more than lip service to the

conservation cause.

q Appeal to higher loyalties – This technique encompasses an

attempt to justify violation of the law by the demands of a group – the

needs of others, such as peers, take precedence. Offenders might

well be “trapped” within syndicates or gangs and intimidated to

conform to standards that may be incompatible with the law. The crux

of this technique, according to Sykes and Matza (1996:211), is that

deviation from certain norms may occur not because the norms are

rejected but because other norms, held to be more pressing or

involving a higher loyalty, are accorded precedence. Illegal reptile

traders/exploiters might be involved, at some or other level, in the

syndicate smuggling of reptiles and either cannot or don’t want to

leave the fold. This connection may be the only form of income that


the family unit has and the cessation of such activities would be to

deprive the family unit of an income. The herpetological criminal does

not necessarily repudiate the requirements of the prevailing normative

system, but rather sees him/herself as caught up in an impasse that

must be resolved, unfortunately, at the cost of infringing the law.

• Auxiliary techniques of neutralisation

In addition to the above generic techniques of neutralisation, Conklin

(2001:223) is of the opinion that, amongst others, the following methods

can also be employed to justify crime and delinquency, namely:

q A person could use a defence of necessity to justify a criminal act by

saying that it is required under the circumstances; this differs from the

denial of responsibility in that the offender accepts responsibility for

the act while claiming that it was necessary. Pilfering reptiles in order

to consume them as victuals or sell them for food money, as detailed

elsewhere in this study, might be viewed as exculpatory and justified

as a compulsory act for which an offender accepts full responsibility.

Not everyone will, however, partake in such activities as the level of

self-control, exposure to crime opportunities, and the degree of

[negative] socialisation towards reptiles can be expected to differ

considerably from person to person. This fact could, furthermore, to a

large extent, serve to explain why certain individuals partake in

different forms of crime and why certain others don’t become involved

in crime at all.

q An offender could view the law or prohibition being violated as

unnecessary, unjust and/or capricious. This argument may take the

form of claiming that particular government interference/protocols with

regard to conservation is actually detrimental to reptile preservation

efforts – a subtle variation on the condemnation of the condemners

theme. Examples hereof would, according to Malherbe (2002) and

Vorster (2002), be the shortsighted placement [by government] of a

total moratorium on the commercial trade in reptiles, prohibition on


collection from the wild for breeding purposes, and/or utilisation of

rehabilitated “problem” reptiles to promote reptile education and

preservation.

Despite what has been asserted above, it should be borne in mind that

some offenders may be so isolated from the world of conformity that

techniques of neutralisation need not be called into play, but

simultaneously that said techniques are critical in lessening the

effectiveness of social controls and that they lie behind a large share of

criminal behaviour (Sykes & Matza 1996:210).

• Applicat ion in herpetological context

One of the more significant, but also ominous, consequences originating

from the learning of skewed/biased perspectives towards reptiles is the

fact that people become desensitised towards this particular natural

resource and fail to perceive it as finite and susceptible to over-

exploitation. Reptiles are often viewed with repulsion, and the resultant

antipathy and aversion towards them can serve to promote deviance in

this sphere. Deviance can, due to this sentiment, easily transpire, be

endorsed and/or tacitly condoned in, amongst others, two specific ways,

namely:

q A desensitised populace will not necessarily regard illegal acts

involving reptile resources as reprehensible and subsequently won’t

ascribe nearly the same amount of censure towards such misdeeds as

they would, for example, towards other more conventional crimes, like

rape, murder, arson and so forth, albeit that herpetological crime rapes

the country’s natural herpetological biodiversity. Herpetological crime

is resultantly tolerated or “allowed” to take place with impunity.

q Criminally orientated Individuals with an apathetic opinion of reptiles

(inculcated through social learning) will, as mentioned in the preceding

section, have a propensity towards herpetological crime should the

confluence of required conditions/circumstances be present. The


decision to partake in herpetological crime is, however, not made on a

whim, but is, it is submitted, rather calculated and laced with rationality.

It is, furthermore and importantly, justified through the process of

neutralisation. Individual differences, with regard to the negative

socialisation towards reptiles, can, however, be expected to fluctuate

from individual to individual to the extent that they will morally

disengage, neutralise and rationalise the decision to partake in

herpetological crime. This fact, it is submitted will also apply mutatis

mutandis to self-control (GTC).

As is no doubt the case with regard to many other explanatory theories,

the neutralisation theory can be viewed as a functional aid to explain the

process of criminal actions, but not necessarily why they occur to begin

with. Neutralisation techniques are, however, felt to be extremely

appropriate in relation to herpetological crime and have, for this very

reason, been discussed subsequent to an exposition of self-control,

opportunities (GTC) and socialisation as causational elements. It is the

researcher’s contention that the presence of these factors is a qualification

for, fuels, and to a certain extent complements the application of

neutralisation techniques with regard to herpetological crime and deviance.

6.3.4 6.3.4 CORNISH AND CLARKE’S RATIONAL CHOICE THEORYCORNISH AND CLARKE’S RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

As mentioned previously, to cite the rational decisions that criminals make in

passing is not considered adequate for the purposes of explaining this

multifaceted cognitive process in the concatenation of herpetological crime.

Such trivialisation in the opinion of the researcher, serves to underplay the

contribution of this important explicatory element in the total herpetological

crime performance. A definition and succinct exposition of the approach is for

this reason provided as a precursor to further discussions of this contributory

element of herpetological crime.


• Definition

McLaughlin and Muncie (2001, s.v. ‘Rational Choice Theory’) define said

theory as follows:

‘The starting point of rational choice theory is that offenders seek advantage to

themselves by their criminal behaviour. This entails making decisions among

alternatives. These decisions are rational within the constraints of time, ability and

the availability of relevant information’.

• General premise

According to Fattah (1993:236-240), Cornish and Clarke’s rational choice

perspective takes as its point of departure the following assumptions:

q It recognises the mundane, opportunistic and rational nature of much

offending, thus rejecting the view that depicts it as immutably foreign

to ordinary behaviour – driven by abnormal motivations, irrational,

purposeless, unpredictable, and evil. Much criminal activity is,

therefore, viewed as nonpathological and commonplace.

q It stresses similarities between criminals and noncriminals, rather

than whatever differences might exist. Instead of focussing on the

irrational and pathological components in some crimes it examines

more closely the rational and adaptive aspects of offending.

q Rather than viewing crime as a unitary phenomenon that could be

explained by a far-reaching theory it calls for crime-specific analysis.

The approach intends to provide a framework for understanding all

forms of crime without attempting to impose a conceptual unity upon

divergent criminal behaviour.


q Instead of focussing attention solely on the criminal, his/her

attributes, traits, bac kground, and factors governing his/her

involvement in particular crimes, it draws attention to the criminal

event itself and the situational factors that influence its commission.

The rational choice approach explicitly recognises their importance in

relation to the criminal event, and, furthermore, incorporates similar

influences on decisions relating to involvement in crime.

Rational choice theory focuses, therefore, on the opportunity to commit

crime and how the social environment structures criminal choices. Siegel

(2001:125) charges that some irrational or mentally disturbed people may

commit crime without thought of potential hazard, but it seems likely that

immediate or situational variables determine and guide most criminal

behaviour – people commit crime when they view its outcome as

beneficial.

Another essential ingredient of rational choice theory, and indeed a pillar

upon which this theory leans heavily, is that of deterrence. Siegel

(2001:125) is of the opinion that if crime is rational and people choose to

commit crime, then it follows that crime can be controlled or eradicated by

convincing potential offenders that crime is a poor choice that will not bring

them rewards but instead pain, hardship and deprivation. Although it is not

within the scope of this thesis to provide an exhaustive exposition of the

deterrent capacity of this theory, it is, due to the converse essentially being

the norm with regard to herpetological deviance (italics mine), deemed

prudent to provide a laconic synopsis of the deterrence strategies

emanating from it. Siegel (2001:125-126) stresses the following in this

regard:

q Situational crime prevention – is aimed at convincing would be

criminals to avoid specific targets. It relies on the doctrine that crime

can be avoided if motivated offenders are denied access to suitable

targets – in essence increased guardianship, advertising the fact that

the potential reward is not worth the risk.


q General deterrence strategies – are designed to make potential

criminals fear the consequences of crime. The threat of punishment

is aimed at convincing rational criminals that crime does not pay.

q Specific deterrence – refers to punishing known criminals so severely

that they will never be tempted to repeat their offences. If crime is

rational, then painful punishment should reduce its future allure.

q Incapacitation strategies – attempt to reduce crime rates by denying

motivated offenders the opportunity to commit crime. If, despite the

threat of law and punishment, some people still find crime attractive,

then the only way to control their behaviour is to incarcerate them for

extended periods.


According to Cornish and Clarke (1987:934), the rational choice

perspective asserts that specific crimes are chosen and committed for

specific reasons – decisions to offend, in other words, are influenced by

the characteristics of both offences and offenders, and are the product of

the interaction between the two. This sentiment, in essence, reflec ts and

consolidates the researcher’s submissions about the rational choice

approach’s contribution towards the formulation of a comprehensive

explanatory perspective of herpetological crime.

In précis of the foregoing section, it can, therefore, be said that the rational

choice approach essentially sees crime as a function of opportunity,

rationality, exogenic factors and the particular situation. It, moreover,

suggests that criminals do not choose their targets randomly, but select

them based on certain criteria such as, it is submitted, attractiveness,

availability, vulnerability [offence characteristics], and of course, degree of

self–control and/or negative socialisation towards reptiles [offender

characteristics], making it imperative to incorporate the victim in any

explanatory model of criminality, hence the intense focus on these issues

in a previous chapter.


Even though someone contemplating herpetological crime is already

sensitised towards it, due the reasons detailed elsewhere in this chapter,

the eventual decision to perform the crime itself remains, it is submitted, a

cogent one. It must once again be made abundantly clear at this juncture

that the potential herpetological criminal is in no way forced (italics mine)

to commit the crime, but that the final decision to continue, displace and/or

amend his/her deviant notions, is based solely on economics, i.e. cost

(risk)/benefit considerations (Cornish & Clarke 1987:934), and is made

entirely voluntarily and rationally. The rational decisions made by criminals

to engage in herpetological crime activities, it is submitted, are preceded

and complemented by one or more of the neutralisation techniques

previously described, and can be viewed as the last stage, so to speak, of

the process that sets in motion the actual participation in an illegal act.

It could be said that the neutralisation/s employed facilitate and augment

the decision (further rationalisation) to participate in herpetological crime.

It would, however, be equally feasible to presume that the decision to

partake in herpetological crime could result without neutralisation

techniques being employed and only due to the confluence of the factors,

greed, low self-control, opportunities and socialisation. The employment of

neutralisation techniques prior to involvement in herpetological crime are,

all things being equal, considered more probable than their non-

employment.

6.4 6.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

As is clear from the preceding discussion, various criminological

theories/perspectives/approaches, both classical/neo-classical and positivist,

can be merged to explicate and provide an enhanced understanding of the

phenomenon of herpetological crime, as well as, in all probability, other more

diverse forms of conservation crime.


It is, furthermore, implicit in this analysis that there is no readily available

panacea or catchall theory, and that the application of a single theory to

produce a result of similar authenticity would be highly unlikely. Due to the

unique, and somewhat unconventional nature, of natural resource crime, more

specifically herpetological crime, it was felt that, rather than attempt to force

the various elements and characteristics of this natural resource crime sub-

type into a particular existing theory, to use relevant elements from existing

theories to create a realistic and pragmatic amalgamated explanation.

The theoretical model, which should be viewed as a theoretical explanation

rather than an explanatory theory, presented in this chapter, therefore,

integrates certain beneficial elements from a number of leading crime theories

in order to provide an effective explanation of much herpetological crime and

deviance, and can pithily be reviewed in the following sequential manner

(recapitulated in figure 6.1).

1) Self-gratification or voracity is assumed to be inherently present within

all human beings from birth. The ability to manage and control these

urges is inculcated during youth, mainly through parenting techniques.

Poor or deficient parenting results in the manifestation of weak self-

control and self-control mechanisms within the individual causing

him/her to have an increased propensity/inclination towards crime and

other forms of aberrant behaviour.

Opportunities for crime act as stimuli or triggering factors drawing such

a person towards participation in crime and are regarded as specifically

relevant in relation to herpetological crime as they are, due to their very

nature, virtually omni-present in society. These elements, consistent

with the central thrust of the general theory of crime, are accepted as

being relevant and applicable to the genesis of herpetological crime

and fundamental elements of its concatenation.

2) Low self-control and opportunities could quite feasibly result in certain

forms of conventional crime occurring, but it is felt that for a crime as


unique as herpetological crime to result, that a catalysing factor is a

pre-requisite. Through the process of socialisation, consistent with the

social learning theory, it is submitted, the general negative societal

stereotype vis à vis reptiles is embedded in, specifically, adolescents

as they observe and model their behaviour on that to which they are

exposed in the social milieu. It is not postulated that herpetological

crime is learnt per se, only that the apathetical attitudes and prejudices

towards these organisms are entrenched [to varying degrees, prior, in

tandem and/or subsequent to the inculcation of poor self-control] in

certain individuals.

This negative socialisation, it is submitted, sensitises/orientates them

towards crime involving reptiles, promoting, as it were, the application

of neutralisation techniques and subsequent rationalisation/s to actively

participate in herpetological crime. When there is a confluence of the

key elements mentioned thus far the probability of herpetological crime

occurring are increased considerably.

3) Consistent with the neutralisation theory, it is felt that a negative

socialisation towards reptiles facilitates justification of the criminal act

and the decision to participate in herpetological crime, as it is easier to

neutralise a criminal act regarding a “victim” that is already despised

and regarded as inferior by society. Neutralisation is thus an integral

element of the explanation posited here and could serve to explain why

rare/scarce/endangered and extremely valuable organisms are

indifferently persecuted and smuggled with little or no regard for their

welfare or the ecological damage their plunder realises. The utilisation

of neutralisation techniques, therefore, it is submitted, in the context of

herpetological crime, precedes and complements the decision making

process detailed below.

4) The final stage in the sequence of herpetological crime aetiology,

consistent with the rational choice perspective, is posited to be the

rational, lucid and strategic decision to partake in the actual criminal


event. The criminal is not forced to participate in herpetological crime

but does so after weighing up the pro’s and the con’s – basically a

decision founded on an evaluation of the opportunities and alternatives

as well as the cost/benefit relationship of the envisaged action.

Although what might seem rational to one person might not seem so to

another, the crux of this approach is that a person makes a conscious

and cogent individualised decision to partake in crime. The rationality

thereof in relation to the decision/s of other criminals is, it is submitted,

irrelevant in the context envisaged here.

Although there is little direct support for the propositions depicted in this

model, data provide indirect support for most of the proposed effects. Such

data, however, typically focus on attitudes towards reptiles and reactions to

conventional crime rather than the illegal exploitation of reptiles per se. Since

the model is quite general in nature it should be viewed as more of a

foundation on which to build than a definitive statement of the causes of

herpetological crime and deviance.

The model in essence attempts only to illustrate the causal relationships

between the variables/elements at an unmitigated level. The theoretical

explanation introduced in this thesis should, however, be sufficient to serve as

a source for much needed research on the determinants, and interrelatedness

of a wide range of variables of natural resource crime and stimulate more

focussed research on the aetiology of this tremendously neglected topic in the

South African context.

The following chapter will examine in more detail the implications and control

mechanisms pertaining to herpetological crime and will subsume, amongst

others, policing statistics, reactive and pro-active control mechanisms,

authority capacity, provincial and national/international cooperation and topical

law enforcement issues.


Figure 6.2: Proposed model (theoretical explanation) of the genesis and

concatenation of herpetological crime.

OPPORTUNITIES

(STIMULI/TRIGGERING FACTORS)

OPPORTUNITIES (STIMULI/TRIGGERING FACTORS)

OPPORTUNITIES (STIMULI/TRIGGERING FACTORS)

OPPORTUNITIES

(STIMULI/TRIGGERING FACTORS)

INHERENT INHERENT GREED/HEDONGREED/HEDON ISMISM

( W I T H I N H U M A N S )

POOR SELFPOOR SELF--CONTROLCONTROL (DEFICIENT

P A R E N T I N G )

INADEQUATE INADEQUATE SOCIALISATIONSOCIALISATION (W ITH REGARD TO

R E P T I L E S )

NN EE UU TT RR AA LL II SS AA TT II OO NN

R CR CA HA HT OT OI II I O CO CN EN EAA LL

HHEE RRPP EE TT OOLL OOGGII CCAALL CCRRII MMEE

THEORETICAL EXPLANATION

Documents

Transcript of THEORETICAL EXPLANATION